A More Petite Queen of the Seas

There is an old saying that one should "Never put all your eggs in one basket." Unfortunately, that may be just what the U.S. Navy has done. 

Aircraft carriers became the backbone of the U.S. fleet shortly after Pearl Harbor. By the end of WWII the U.S. with 22 large carriers and a much larger number of light and escort carriers. In the 1950s the first of the super carriers was launched starting with the USS Forrestal. These carriers were almost 1100' long and could carry a complement of 80 aircraft. The first group of super carriers was conventionally powered but later super carriers starting with the USS Enterprise were nuclear powered. The USS Gerald R. Ford is the newest iteration of these giant carriers, built at a cost of $13 billion. It is still undergoing sea trials and has not yet joined the fleet.

For a long time these super carriers allowed the U.S. to project power relatively at will around the world, averting many situations that could have degenerated into war. But times have now changed and two factors loom largest.

The first is the development of ship-killer missiles. The Chinese DF-21 ballistic missile is supersonic and can carry both conventional and nuclear payloads. Because of its speed it can be very difficult to shoot down. It is specifically designed as a ship killer out to a range of 1,100 miles and therein lies the second problem. 

The U.S. Navy has simply failed to maintain its long-range strike aircarft capabilty since the 1990s. The current F/A-18s are only good for a combat radius of approximately 450 miles. Thus, while the Chinese can hit us while our carriers and escort ships are 1,100 miles out, we can only reach out and touch them within 450 miles - a 650 mile disparity. 

Obviously, the U.S. would use cruise missiles, B-2s and other weapons systems to even the playing field but we are simply not in the same position as previous decades to send in a $13B carrier with relative impunity. 

One last factor to consider is that we currently only have 10 super carriers operating and two under construction. At any given time, two carriers are typically in dry dock for lengthy overhauls after deployments. The Navy already does not have enough carriers to meet its responsibilities around the world. Lose one carrier and it puts an even bigger hole in the ability of the U.S. to control the seas.

The most likely answer is not to abandon carriers altogether but to go to more and smaller carriers. From a strategic standpoint, it makes no difference whether the U.S. brings 80 aircraft to bear from one or 40 from each of two carriers. Multiple carriers complicates the targeting by potential enemies. Smaller carriers can be built more cheaply and quickly than the super carriers of today. More carriers can be dispersed to more places around the world, as needed. A faceoff with a bunch of Somali warlords is not going to require the same combat power as a staredown with the Chinese, so one smaller carrier would more than suffice. 

The article below suggests that as super carriers retire, they could be replaced on a 2-for-1 basis. Perhaps, but I am not sure our enemies' capabilities will give us the luxury of that much time in view of the long life span of a super carrier. It is becoming increasingly clear in any event, however, that there needs to be a major shift in our defense thinking and carriers are one of the key areas where this needs to happen first. 


foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/americas-carrier-gap-crisis-highlights-a-need-for-sma-1740644946

nationalinterest.org/feature/should-america-embrace-smaller-aircraft-carriers-14001